Letters: Demanding answers from school district; Arbitrary decisions are concern

Demanding answers from school district

In the last year, 30 employees have left the Moshannon Valley School District, including 25% of the teaching staff. Over 30 former and current MV employees have said administration has created a hostile work environment through bullying and retaliation. We have legal documentation supporting these claims.

Staff misconduct is a clear concern. There have been staff resignations related to misconduct in the recent past, supported by findings in public records. There are reports that members of this administration continue to walk a fine line bordering on misogyny and misconduct.

John Zesiger, district superintendent, said Moshannon Valley is a “stair step district,” and that turnover of staff has always been high. There are new faces every year. Teachers happy and successful in their positions are shuffled from grade to grade. Why is this acceptable? How does this lack of continuity provide any consistency in education for our kids? How does this ensure teachers excel and grow in their profession?

When presented with this information, the administration and board leadership have rejected that these personal accounts are true or actionable. They place all blame on teachers and parents, redirecting the public eye away from poor management decisions.

The children in this district deserve a quality education in a safe environment. We demand truth and transparency from this administration and action from this school board. We refuse to accept this for our children and demand the board and administration start aiming for excellence, rather than excuses.

Arbitrary decisions are concern

The recent State College Borough Council discussion of short-term rentals should be a source of concern for borough residents. I refer to the process by which the adopted ordinance was derived. Specifically, after much discussion and public input, the decision was to reject the proposed 60-day cap and instead adopt a 120-day annual cap on STR activity. Much of the discussion was flavored by public comment on a bad actor in College Heights; activity which was illegal under the old rules, was being handled appropriately by the borough and not germane to the discussion of the new rules.

Realizing that properly run STRs can and do provide value to borough residents and a 60-day cap may be too limiting, council proposed that the annual cap be 120 days, because, and I quote: “at least it’s something.” Is this really how decisions regarding the fabric of life in the borough are made – based on the rationale that a stipulation in an ordinance qualifies as “at least it’s something?” No foundational basis beyond that? I suspect most readers understand the term “arbitrary and capricious,” but look no further, this was a textbook example. One wonders if a judge could keep a straight face when the answer to a question about the logic behind the 120-day cap is “we thought it was at least something.” With no logical basis for a cap in mind, why invoke one at all? Come on, council, you can and should provide better justification than that for your decisions.